Iran attacking Israel is totally plausible. Heck, an Iranian missile might make it a whole fifteen feet off the ground before their entire country is razed by Israel's firepower. I'm sure their just itching to do that.

Problem is, unless Israel is sitting on some incredibly cool secret stuff, they don't have the conventional means to take out the Iranian nuke program. America almost certainly does, in a full court press.

For myself, given the explicit nuclear threats made by various Iranian leaders over the years, I think Israel would be fully justified in using low-yield nukes to dig out the Iranian underground facilities, if that's the only way to do it. I'm also pretty sure 99.9% of the world disagrees with me on this and that probably includes most GOP politicians.

So a non-nuclear takedown is going to require the US. And the price of oil is going to skyrocket no matter who does the deed.

Israel might not have the ability to mount a destructive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. They have enough strike aircraft, but not enough tanker aircraft for the midair refuelings that will be required.

Why, for the oceans to recede, the planet to heal, and the Reset to be revealed as the final Rapture. Imagine having to put up with dolts like Netanyahu. Just wait for the second term, when the One will be freed from having to suck up to all those retrogrades, and will have the flexibility to do what needs doing.

If Israel goes against Iran it is likely that Iran will see the US as complicit. Thus, if Israel attacks Iran and Iran responds, they will likely include the US in their response. We are involved, and perhaps without a veto.

Regarding Iran, I would think, unless they don't care about Palistinians and holy places, that they would need five or more aim points to do Israel. Assume two weapons per aim point, plus ten to deter Saudi Arabia in the event of a successful Israeli counter-strike, plus ten to deter the US, plus a couple for testing, it will probably take Iran several years to go from Item 1 to Item 32. It took us a couple of years.

First of all, I don't see this admin. publicly, much less privately, making the threat your second comment requires. Secondly, your first comment assumes calculation by rational actors. That is a stretch. I feel certain that Israel is not assuming that their existential adversary is not making the calculations that you assume.

A week ago I read an article quoting an Israeli spokesman saying the US shouldn't worry about being dragged into war if Israel attacks Iran. His point was that the Iranians would never be so irrational as to attack US ships in the Persian Gulf or US ground forces. Now I read posts here saying the Iranians would go off half-cocked if they every got a nuclear weapon.

One of these positions isn't right. Either the Iranians are rational actors or they are not.

C R Krieger said...And a follow-up. I believe it is important that the United States make explicit that the use of nuclear weapons by anyone against Israel will result in overwhelming force in response.

=================There is no formal mutual assistance defense treaty between the US and Israel, or for that matter between Israel and anyone.

There have been discussions, mainly about the efforts of the Quartet and Saudi Arabia to get permanent borders, denuke the ME, rid it of other WMDs (with Russia, Britain, US, and somehow France acting as Guarantors of force to keep the Borders set or join in any fight against a ME aggressor)...but initially that all went no where due to Zionist and Palestinian intransigence. Then Bush and the Neocons fucked the Quartet negotiations all up with the Iraq War.

If we were to commit to risk America getting into a ME conflagration via a defense treaty, we would ask for some things from the Jews.They clear out of their West Bank colonies, they and not us, pay the Palestinians for the land, property they stole - less what the Arabs did when they cleansed certain Jewish populations (the Jews that did not voluntarily leave for Israel).

The US is already overcommitted abroad. Any deal with Israel would have to come with a starting point where an agreement 1st happens with the Arabs and Israelis along the lines of the Prince Abdullah Plan.

Israel and the Palis refuse - fine - no official commitment to defend them. But I suppose we could see how many ignorant Christian Zionist goobers would be willing to serve as volunteer cannon fodder for the Israelis if asked. Sort of like the Communist organized Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. Not officially sanctioned by the US. But free to go and die for a foreign cause (or religious one in the case of many of the CZ goobers)

If Iran nukes Israel America will attack Iran. Not to defend Israel, but to defend ourselves. To not do so would allow any regime with nuclear weapons both complete freedom of action and veto power over international relations.

Marshal said...If Iran nukes Israel America will attack Iran. Not to defend Israel, but to defend ourselves. To not do so would allow any regime with nuclear weapons both complete freedom of action and veto power over international relations.

=================I believe that Israel has its own nukes, which are a prime motivator of other ME nations to engage in a WMD arms race to try and match the Israeli WMD advantage.

So if Israel is nuked (and the Iranaians are a few years away if they go the final stage - which they haven't yet done) no one would be too riled if Israel nuked Iran in retaliation.But if the US came in out of the blue and nuked Iran when Iran posed no threat to the US and we were acting on emotions of the moment, the clout of the Israel lobby and Christian Zionists - and outside any mutual defense pact??

In that hypothetical...when the fallout clouds from US nuclear weapons hit Iraq, Turkey, Russia, the Caucusus nations, Pakistan, India, Kazakstan....count on the US, if it wades in to use WMD when it iself was never attacked and under no treaty obligation to wage war..to be held fully responsible as a separate aggressor besides Iran.

Isn't it great to see a leader stand up for his country instead of a certain POS I could name?

In other news, the guy running for re=election is too busy to meet with the prime minister of Israel, but not David Letterman. Isn't it great to see a leader without a skewed sense of values?

Somewhere, sometime, someone clued the guy running for re-election that Sept. 11 was a important date, not because he had an interview with a DJ in Miami, but because a lot of Americans died. But not before hos first tweet of the day begging for more help in his re-election bid.(see point #2 and the other guys first tweet of the day)

Andy supports ALL oppressed people. Even the ones that want to kill women, children, queers, christians, anyone that isn't them. I gotta' give Andy a BIG "tip o' the hat". It takes a special kind of dedication to be that stupid. Way to go Andy! You go, girl!! Woo Hoo! You rock!

Did I mention they found Zero's nuts? Moochie had them all this time in her Gucci handbag.

And don't let it be said that the Arab Spring hasn't accomplished anything positive. At the rate it's going, it will soon clean out all the leftist apologists in the state department. Woo Hoo! You go angry young pederast worshipper! You Rock!(or stone, as the case may be)

Bill, Republic of Texas said...Why not let Israel deal with the problem? They are the one most threatened by Iran. Why put Americans in jeopardy when Israel is willing and able?

A lot of their military hardware is sourced here. part of the treaty between the US and Israel that provides 3 billion in military aid. It's the reason they use the M4 rather than the superior Galil. Israel wants to be assured that it will still be supplied should push come to shove.

(and the Iranaians are a few years away if they go the final stage - which they haven't yet done)

1. We should all understand the assertion Iran is "years away" is an unknowable estimate used solely to delay action. Estimates put this at 18 months, but it could be 6 months.

2. When the Iranians do develop nuclear weapons those who are now telling us "years away" will never speak publicly on the subject again - except CF because he doesn't really care if people recognize his hypocrisy stemming from his anti-semitism. The media will seamlessly switch to promoting leftists who claim we all knew this was coming, so what's the big deal?.

The assumption that Israel does not have sufficient conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) capacity to attack the Iranian nuclear infrastructure is simply not correct.

If the Israelis decide to strike (note: 9/15 is the next new moon, if I am not mistaken, though that guarantees nothing), they would likely attack electrical power generation (the nuke production facilities use massive amounts of juice), air defense/command sites, and then send in their limited bunker-busters to handle the hardened sites. They are unlikely to waste much time on knocking out the sites themselves (though one never knows...), but rather they would go after the air and thermal venting systems, which by the very nature of what they do cannot be hardened too much. Follow-on strikes (this would not be a single raid) and possible cruise missile/UAV strikes would go after targets of opportunity (likely personnel and repair operations), as well as further hits on infrastructure. Combine this with cyberattacks, assassinations (some rather unsubtle, after all at this point, subtlety will be a wasting asset), and the odd commando operation, and they will be able to take out most of the nuke effort and retard what is left for at least 24-36 months. If the Iranians are foolish enough to respond in any meaningful way (likely the horde of rockets that they have in Gaza and Lebanon), they will do some damage, but those assets will be permanently degraded, and not usable in the future.

The end result would be an Iranian nationalistic surge that would last for a short time, then fade to the usual grudging acceptance as the corruption and incompetence of the mullahs reasserts itself. A 2-3 year delay in progress buys the Israelis a lot of time (google "And maybe the horse will sing" for a good explanation of why that matters) in which the Iranian situation will continue to deteriorate. Damage in Israel would not be light, but it would not be excessive (they have prepared for this eventuality), and ultimately Iran has almost as many enemies as Israel does, so the political reprecussions aren't likely to be excessive.

Is this something to be desired? Of course not...but the alternative? Promises from Obama all come with expiration dates, and depending upon the good will of someone who has shown nothing but contempt and hostility to Israel from the beginning of his administration strikes me as an incredibly bad bet. The US refuses to even define Red Lines past which the Iranians could not go...is there a better way to demonstrate to the Israelis that they are on their own?

Note: none of this means that I believe anything would be easy or even certain...war doesn't work that way. But it is certainly within the existing KNOWN capabilities of the IDF (really the IAF) to seriously degrade, possibly beyond remediation, the Iranian nuke infrastructure.

...not enough tanker aircraft for the midair refuelings that will be required.

The Israelis had the tanker aircraft for the Osirak strike, and are believed to have the capacity (but no margin for error, with all air-tankers engaged) for a strike on Iran. They could also use escorting F-15s for buddy-stores, but again with no margin for error.

The overflight would be a bigger issue, however, considering a strike would have to cross Syria/Iraq or Jordan/Saudi/Iraq. During Operation Opera (Osirak), the Israeli F-16s spoofed the Jordanians by IFF'ing themselves as Saudis, and the Saudis by IFF'ing themselves as Jordanians.

If a conventional attack failed (unlikely, for the reasons I mentioned above), and the Israelis faced a more desparate situation (say an Iranian nuclear test in the immediate aftermath, or some sort of other catastrophe), they might consider a nuclear strike. Leaving the cataclysmic political consequences out of the calculation (and in the long run, nothing short of an imimnent threat would be likely to override these), a strike would consist of sub-launched cruise missiles (in a nice bit of irony, their subs are German-made) with as many as 24 nukes of 200kt each. Depending upon whose intelligence data you want to believe, the Israelis have as many as 48 Jerichos available (the likely number is much smaller), each with warheads in the 100-400kt range. Rounding this out, the F-15Is of the IAF (and possibly the F-16Is as well) have a nuclear capability, and declassified reports estimate as many as another 50-100 nukes, mostly in the 10-50kt range. Some (unreliable) reports suggest a few megaton-class weapons, but to be honest I don't believe them.

The Jerichos would be used to knock out the superhard targets, as well as some C3I sites, and a few regime-sustainability (i.e. leadership bunkers) facilities. Cruise missiles would probably be retained for a second strike, or retaliation against third parties. finally, a few air-dropped bombs might be used against high-value military targets such as Army HQs or weapons depots. Population centers would be spared, where possible.

Aside from the obvious destruction and death (proably about 2-3 million deaths, 250k prompt, the rest from long-term), there would be significant fallout, almost all of it pushed due East into Afghanistan and possibly India/China (in limited amounts) The nature of the attack, and its fairly limited nature (we will leave out a wargasm like Samson option from consideration, which would produce roughly 10x the death and post-attack effects) could be contained, but the risk of escalation would of course be horrifying.

My point is not simply to be grisly, but to suggest that the Isrealis also have a plan B, should things go south with less unpleasant options. No sane person wants any of this, but unless something is done to provide the Israelis with some sort of assurances that they won't face a second holocaust, this is the direction we are heading...

You are spot on re: tanker aircraft. The Israelis have some options with their C-130s as well as some of their civilian Boeings. Though the buddy stores option isn't likely (those F-15s will be busy), conformal fuel packs (which the Israelis have used at times) are an option for the existing F-15Is.

Overflight is less problematic I think. The Jordanians might consider interfering, but I suspect that they have been warned about the consequences (their 1967 experience would be instructive....remember, they were warned then, and chose to ignore that warning). Even if they chose not to stay out of things, there are more than enough options (jamming/spoofing, interference with their airfields/radars, etc.) that i dont' believe Jordan is much of an issue. Saudi Arabia doesn't like the Israelis but they like the Iranians a whole lot less, and I would wager that they are far more likely to simply look the other way, or failing that, simply attempt a half-hearted and ineffective interception after it is far too late to do anything about it. Iraq doesn't have enough of a radar net (or interception force) to make a difference. I certainly wouldn't ignore the real question of overflight, but it isn't a show-stopper.

Netanyahu has a lot of nerve to demand that Americans go die in Iran (not to mention bankrupt our floundering economy) just so Israel doesn't lose it's monopoly on nuclear weapons in the middle east.

Israel has submarine launched nuclear cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and the world's best fighter pilots. With all that it's absurd that they can go demand we also die for them. A lot of countries would be happy beyond belief to have a 300-to-zero advantage in nuclear weapons with their neighbors. Israel in contrast wants us to go fight a war for them against the possibility that Iran may get a single weapon in the next couple of years.

Well screw that.

Israel claims we won't allow them to defend themselves. That's such baloney. They can go defend themselves till the cows come home. What they're really mad about is our unwillingness to fight their wars for them.